Theological splurge on the authority of men over their wives

Right, so tonight I'm going to have a bit of a theological splurge and talk about the idea of 'ontological equality and economic subordination'. Sounds fascinating huh? Well it is! This sentence has managed to shed light on an issue I have been puzzling over since I first became a Christian, and I thought I'd write something about it to help me process my thoughts.

Perhaps, like me, you have had qualms at times when reading verses like 1 Corinthians 11:3, which states that "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ". Now, the reason why one might have a problem with these verses is probably apparent to most of you reading this (especially if you're a woman), that is that it seems to imply that men are in some way superior to women, or else that perhaps that men are better leaders than women, or something along those lines. However, I believe that the concept of 'ontological equality and economic subordination' sheds light on another interpretation that doesn't justify a chauvinistic imposition of 2nd rate citizenship onto the fairer sex.

In Corinthians Paul uses simile to compare the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, with the relationship between a man and his wife. Now, we know that the Father and the Son are both fully God, that they are ontologically (in their being) equal, and that one is not greater then the other, either in terms of inherent value or in terms of power or ability. Yet, in terms of economics (and I am using 'economics' in the old sense meaning "ordering of activities"), the Son is subordinate to the Father without being even the slightest iota less then the Father. You might then wonder, "If the Son and the Father are equal in both ability and inherent value, then surely which one of them is economically subordinate is a mute point, arbitrary, doesn't matter? Could not the Father just as easily been subordinate to the Son?". To this I would point out that if that were the case, that is if the Father was indeed economically subordinate to the Son, then He would no longer be the 'father' and the Son would no longer be the 'son'. Implicit in the titles given to either member of the Godhead is the idea that it is in their very nature for the Son to under the authority of the Father. Therefore, the relationship between the Father and Son is not a grudging subordination of the lesser to the greater, but a joyful expression of the inherent nature of both parties.

This analogy is obviously not perfect, as the relationship between a father and son is not completely analogous with the relationship between a husband and wife. However, implicit in the analogy is an affirmation of the ontological equality of men and women, both in terms of inherent value and practical ability, and also and affirmation of the differences in the nature of men and women. In order to understand what this verse is saying we need to completely do away with a cultural or worldly mindset which equates authority with superiority and, once we have done that, delve into the mystery of what it really means to be a man or a woman. Anyway, that's my theological rant for the night, I need sleep!

Selamat malam!
CJ

Discipline

   Since I came to Dunedin in February to be an intern for TSCF at Otago there has been one question that has cropped up a number of times, one which, until now, I haven't really had a coherent answer for. Usually this question has taken the form of "What are you goals for this year?" or "What do you aim to learn?". Up until this morning, my answer to said question would have looked something like this, "Oh....um.....I'm not sure. I just want to be able to make a difference I guess.....". Perhaps not particularly well expressed in my answer is a sincere desire to invest into others simply for the sake of seeming them grow. What has been largely left unarticulated is a change of focus away from thinking about what I can do to best invest into myself, help myself grow, and equip myself for some glorious and ethereal future good work, and toward what I can do now, in the cold and wild South, with the skills I already have, to help others grow in a meaningful way.
   These things, of course, all remain to be true. However, it occurred to me this morning, perhaps partly through the real or imagined demand for a more satisfactory answer to the question of personal growth, and most definitely through a retrospective review of how I've spent my time over the last month, combined with a rather perilous encounter I had recently involving a cliff and rain and slipping, that there is one flaw in my character that I wouldn't mind seeing improvement on this year ("Only one?!", you cry?). But before you wander into retrospection on my many flaws, and wonder how I ever could have singled out just one that warrants special focus, let me make my confession. I am undisciplined. I am lazy, I don't use my time well, I don't work or study hard, I'm a bum. There are many ways to say it and they all mean the same thing: I need to grow in discipline. (You might take note that since starting this blog and posting my first article I have lacked the discipline to write any subsequent posts....)
   If I am to become the man that I so strongly desire to be, then how I spend my time is vitally important. I cannot, nor will I, continue to live a lifestyle where my aspirations and dreams are never realized, simply because I would rather spend my time watching Disney and DC animated movies than studying, working, exercising, and connecting with people. To dare to do great things for God means to have the discipline to pursue them day by day. I must get in the arena. I must strive beyond the efforts of the average and prayerfully rely on God to help me do so. I must, through blood and sweat and tears, be counted among the minority, among the doers of this age, among those who know that there time on this earth is short and do their best to engage with a broken world, and not among the apathetic, the critics, those that rest in the empty offer of opulence and comfort, an illusion of wellbeing promised by a world that doesn't know what to do with it's own pain.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

GLAM (God's Love And Mine)
CJ Watterson